REVIEW Open Access

Frameworks for embedding a researchculture in allied health practice: a rapidreviewSusan C. Slade1*, Kathleen Philip2 and Meg E. Morris1,3

Abstract

Background: Although allied health clinicians play a key role in the provision of healthcare, embedding a cultureof research within public and private health systems remains a challenge. In this rapid review we critically evaluateframeworks for embedding research into routine allied health practice, as the basis for high quality, safe, efficientand consumer-focused care.

Methods: A rapid review (PROSPERO: CRD42017075699) was conducted to evaluate frameworks designed to createand embed research in the health sector. Included were full-text, English-language, peer-reviewed publications orGovernment reports of frameworks that could inform the implementation of an allied health research framework.Eight electronic databases and four government websites were searched, using search terms such as models,frameworks and research capacity-building. Two independent researchers conducted all review stages and usedcontent and thematic analysis to interpret the results.

Results: Sixteen framework papers were finally included. Content analysis identified 44 system and regulatory levelitems that informed the research frameworks, 125 healthcare organisation items and 76 items relating to individualclinicians. Thematic analysis identified four major themes. Firstly, sustainable change requires allied health researchpolicies, regulation, governance and organisational structures that support and value evidence-based practice.Secondly, research capability, receptivity, advocacy and literacy of healthcare leaders and managers are key tosuccessful research implementation. Third, organisational factors that facilitate a research culture include dedicatedstaff research positions, time allocated to research, mentoring, professional education and research infrastructure.When healthcare agencies had strong partnerships with universities and co-located research leaders, researchimplementation was strengthened. Finally, individual attributes of clinicians, such as their research skills andcapabilities, motivation, and participation in research teams, are essential to embedding research into practice.

Conclusion: Theoretical frameworks were identified that informed processes to embed a culture of allied healthresearch into healthcare services. Research-led and evidence-informed allied health practice enables optimisation ofworkforce capability and high-quality care.

Keywords: research capacity, allied health, policy, systematic review knowledge translation, implementationscience, leadership

* Correspondence: s.slade2@latrobe.edu.au1La Trobe Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine Research, School of AlliedHealth, College of Science, Health & Engineering, La Trobe University,Bundoora 3086, AustraliaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link tothe Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0304-2

BackgroundAllied health services are a major pillar of health andsocial care worldwide and allied health professionalsconstitute approximately one-third of the healthworkforce [1]. The term ‘allied health’ refers to abroad range of health disciplines, excluding doctors,nurses and midwives, dentists, and complementarytherapists. Allied health can include disciplines suchas physiotherapy, speech therapy, occupational ther-apy, podiatry, psychology, dietetics, pharmacy, pros-thetics, orthotics, orthoptics, radiology, medicalscience, social work and exercise physiology [2], al-though this varies across the globe.Allied health clinicians play a key role in promoting

health and wellbeing in the public and private healthcaresectors [3]. As well as managing impairments, disabilitiesand participation restrictions [4], allied health profes-sionals bridge the gap between the medical and nursingprofessions, advocate for patients and their families, andfoster inter-professional teams and multi-disciplinarycare [1, 2, 4–8]. Allied health professionals are encour-aged to be research literate [6], and to assist the transla-tion of research evidence into clinical practice tooptimise patient outcomes [9]. Some are also researchgenerators [10] and others focus on research implemen-tation [11] to bridge the evidence-practice gap [12].Evidence-based practice is central to effective,

efficient, consumer-focused healthcare. It centresaround the principles of (1) best available evidence,(2) clinical expertise and (3) incorporating consumerpreferences into practice [13]. Despite clinical ex-pertise and a quality focus, some allied health pro-fessionals lack research and evaluation skills [14–16].Clinical practice has traditionally been directed to-wards patient care and resource allocation, with al-lied health clinicians being ‘consumers’ of research[6]. This is evolving, and more allied health profes-sionals are now becoming involved in research train-ing, knowledge generation, knowledge translation,evidence implementation, policy setting, researchpartnerships, co-production and research leadership[1, 2, 7, 10, 17, 18].Underpinning evidence-based practice is a strong

research culture with a framework that enables ser-vice planning, decision-making and sustained integra-tion of evidence-based healthcare [19–21].Governments have increasingly recognised that re-sources are optimised and health outcomes are im-proved when health policy and programme design areinformed by evidence from research [22–24]. A func-tioning research culture is necessary to enable this re-search generation [9]. There is a need for researchcapacity-building in allied health to develop individ-uals to higher levels of skill, which will enable them

to conduct quality research and translate the findingsto improve patient outcomes.There also exists a need to improve the ability of

individuals, organisations and systems to conduct, useand promote research through providing training,funding, infrastructure, linkages and career pathways[18, 25–27]. Some of the main reasons for buildingresearch capacity and a research culture are to adoptevidence-based practice, generate new knowledge,achieve research objectives, strengthen workforce re-search literacy and assist workforce recruitment, re-tention and job satisfaction [12, 18, 20, 28, 29].A strategic approach to research capacity-building is

needed to accommodate the complex and multi-disciplinary context of allied healthcare [1, 8, 30]. Thestrategies that have been traditionally used to buildresearch capability and capacity have mainly focusedon processes, such as skill development, in evidence-based practice, journal clubs or quality projects [1, 2,6, 19, 31, 32]. They have also focused on researchtraining, such as grant writing, conference presenta-tions, publication writing, and encouragement to par-ticipate in research networks and partnerships [5, 28,33–40]. Despite the need, there is no current frame-work for embedding an allied health research cultureacross allied health practice in public or privatehealthcare systems.As the basis for developing a future policy frame-

work to embed allied health research into routineclinical practice, this review shall critically evaluatethe published worldwide literature on theories andframeworks that have been designed and developed tocreate and embed research capacity in the alliedhealth clinical sector. A framework provides (1) thelens through which research capacity-building strat-egies are developed and evaluated; (2) the potentialdeterminants and domains of research implementation(including individual, organisational and policyfactors); (3) research engagement actions; and (4)mechanisms for research to inform policy and prac-tice [22, 26].Of particular interest in this review were frame-

works to build research capability, capacity and im-plementation. We also searched for frameworks thatincorporated a broader systems level and policy view-point so that research implementation did not solelyrest in the hands of individual clinicians. We proposethat allied health clinical practice can be enhanced byembedding a research culture into routine serviceprovision within the clinical environment. The imple-mentation of policies, systems, environments andleadership models empowering clinicians to incorpor-ate research as a routine part of their role were alsofoci of this rapid review.

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 2 of 15

Research questionWhat allied health research frameworks and modelshave robust evidence to enable a research culture tobe embedded into routine allied health clinicalpractice?

AimsThis review shall inform the future design of an alliedhealth framework to foster a culture of research in al-lied health practice. As a first step, the primary aimsof this rapid review are to (1) identify existing re-search capacity-building and capability-building andresearch culture frameworks/models, as well as to (2)synthesise existing evidence to identify the essentialelements for embedding a culture of research withinallied health practice. The secondary aim is to sum-marise the strengths and limitations of existing frame-works and models.

MethodsThis rapid review was commissioned by the Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, Victoria,Australia, and was registered with the internationalprospective register of systematic reviews (PROS-PERO: CRD42017075699). The rapid review was con-ducted and informed by Cochrane guidelines [41] andrapid review methods [42, 43], and reported accordingto the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Re-views and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement [44]and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting thesynthesis of Qualitative research [45]. The a priori in-clusion and exclusion criteria were established beforeconducting searches of the electronic databases andwere applied to the final search yield. All reviewstages were conducted by two independent reviewers,who collaborated when necessary to reach consensus.

Eligibility criteriaEligibility criteria were established before searchingelectronic databases. Papers were included if theywere full text English-language, published in peer-reviewed journals or on organisation/Governmentwebsites, reported frameworks, models for buildingresearch capacity and culture in healthcare, and pro-vided items for review and/or evaluation. Broadhealthcare models could be included for later evalu-ation of applicability to allied health. Editorials andopinion pieces were excluded.

Definitions

1. A ‘Theory’ was defined as “a system of ideas thatprovide an explanation and/or a set of principles onwhich the practice of an activity is based” [46]. It has

also been defined as “a set of analytical principles orstatements designed to structure our observation,understanding and explanation of the world” [47].

2. A ‘Model’ was defined as “a deliberate simplification ofa phenomenon or a specific aspect of a phenomenon”,“closely related to theory” and “a model is descriptivewhile a theory is explanatory” [47].

3. A ‘Frameworks’ was defined as “a structure, overview,outline, system or plan consisting of variousdescriptive categories, e.g. concepts, constructs orvariables, and the relations between them that arepresumed to account for a phenomenon” [47]. In thisreview, we considered that a framework wouldinform polices, decisions and judgments aboutevidence-based allied health practice. The frameworkcould also specify potential individual, system andorganisational determinants of research use, researchengagement and knowledge dissemination [22].

4. ‘Research capacity-building’ was defined as the“process of individual and institutional developmentwhich leads to higher levels of skills and greater abil-ity to perform useful research” [26]. Key common ele-ments across research capacity-building includeshared goals, collaboration and partnership, educa-tion and training, organisation support and leader-ship, evaluation, and monitoring. It may beconsidered as a continuum of clinician research de-velopment from a research consumer to a researchactive clinician and then to a research leader. It is anapproach to the development of sustainable skills,organisational structures, resources and commit-ments to improvement in health and other sectorsto multiply health gains [26].

Identification of included papersElectronic databases were searched without date limitsup until October 15, 2017, using explosions and combi-nations of key search terms such as allied healthcare,allied health clinicians, allied health, framework, model,theory, research capacity, capacity-building, researchcapacity-building, research culture, clinical research, re-search culture, organisational role, motivation theory,health researcher, framework, theory, model, policy, al-lied health, translation, implementation, leadership, andgovernance. A sample MEDLINE search strategy is in-cluded in Appendix 1.The following eight databases were searched:

CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, PsychInfo,Health and Psychological Instruments, Global Healthand Google Scholar. Websites included the Govern-ment of Canada Publications, United Kingdom De-partment of Health, Victorian Government LibraryServices catalogue, the Primary Health Care Researchand Information Service, and Australian Government

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 3 of 15

health websites. Reference lists of relevant reportswere searched, and other relevant work soughtthrough citation tracking, the grey literature, consult-ation with the Research and Liaison Librarian at theVictorian Government Library Service and contactwith content and research experts. All of the searcheswere downloaded to a reference database for deletionof duplicates and initial screening of titles by the pri-mary author, who deleted those that were clearlyirrelevant.Two reviewers independently reviewed the search

results, deleted duplicates, and screened titles and ab-stracts for exclusion of reports that did not meet theeligibility criteria. Full text copies were obtained forall potentially relevant reports, independently screenedagainst the eligibility criteria and read in full beforefinal inclusion/exclusion.

Method quality appraisalMethod quality appraisal was conducted when therewas a validated instrument for the appropriate empir-ical study design such as the preliminary MixedMethods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [48] for mixedmethods studies or the Critical Appraisal SkillsProgramme (CASP) Checklist [49] for qualitative em-pirical studies. In the absence of a validated instrumentwe described the reported psychometric properties orprovided a narrative summary of elements that mayhave contributed to the risk of bias. We used guidancefrom the National Collaborating Centre for Methodsand Tools [50].

Data extractionData extraction guidelines were developed so that thesame information was extracted from each includedpaper and systematically extracted into spreadsheetsunder the pre-specified headings of first author, title,year, journal or organisation or publisher, domain,theory, model, items, and the conceptual framework.Items were extracted independently by two re-searchers from each framework or from the text ofthe report. The research capacity-building titles wereidentified and their items were assembled into groupsthat addressed common targets. Common targets in-cluded headings that incorporated words such as indi-vidual, organisation, system or policy. Under theseheadings we included items such as enablers, barriers,skills, self-efficacy, policies and procedures, manage-ment, legislation, regulation, etc. The completed dataextraction forms were examined for consistency. Fol-lowing discussion, these were merged for the datasynthesis phase.

Data synthesisTwo independent reviewers (SS, MM) conducted the-matic and content analysis and consulted during theprocess using the constant comparison method, which(1) summarising and synthesising the item contentwith data reduction of items into ‘like’ categories and(2) the formation of themes through overarchingsimilarities and connections. No prior theory wasused to assist in identification of items and frame-works, but rather iterative rounds of open data-driveninductive coding were used [51–53]. The content ana-lysis aimed to identify the key items that were im-portant for embedding a research culture. Thethematic analysis aimed to build an understanding ofthe broader framework of research capacity-building.

ResultsThe total search yield of 1255 articles was sorted bytitle and 1158 clearly unsuitable titles were excluded.Five papers were added from reference lists and theremaining 97 titles were examined by title and ab-stract. Sixty-eight papers were excluded after applyingthe eligibility criteria to the information contained inthe abstract. Of the remaining 34 papers, two re-viewers independently, and by consensus, excluded 23papers after reading them in detail and applying theeligibility criteria.Figure 1 shows a flowchart of progress into the re-

view, indicating the papers/documents that met thecriteria and were included for data extraction, as wellas the final exclusions. The final 16 included papersand organisation/government reports contained 16discrete research capacity-building frameworks andmodels that included domains and items for data ex-traction and synthesis (Table 1) [19, 22–28, 30, 54–60]. Twenty-three papers were excluded in the finalround; 18 did not report a framework or model, onewas a conference abstract, and four were qualitativeor investigative studies (Appendix 2). Frameworks forresearch capacity-building in healthcare had been de-veloped and implemented in Australia, Canada,United Kingdom and United States of America anddate from 2001 to 2017. The extracted frameworksare summarised in Table 1.

Method quality appraisalDue to a lack of reported data, we were unable to applythe MMAT and CASP checklists to 10 of the includedframeworks. Five of these frameworks were derived byexpert opinion and evidence synthesis and will requirevalidity and reliability testing [19, 26, 30, 55, 57]. Threeframeworks were derived from literature reviews andunreported qualitative/quantitative methods [28, 56, 60].Two frameworks were government reports and guidance

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 4 of 15

documents derived from expert opinion and requiredimplementation and effectiveness testing [23, 24].The SPIRIT Action Framework was developed by lit-

erature synthesis, interviews with policy-makers and aniterative process of pragmatic tool development. TheSPIRIT is not specific to allied health and requires im-plementation and effectiveness testing for allied healthprofessions. It can guide conceptually informed practicaldecisions in the selection and testing of interventions toincrease the use of research in policy. It scored 100% onthe MMAT Appraisal Tool for quality of qualitative andmixed methods [22].The Thematic Model for Research Capacity Building

was informed by qualitative research methods usingstructured interviews that were thematically analysed.Four key themes formed the foundation of a researchcapacity-building framework. It scored 100% on theMMAT for the quality of the qualitative methods andsatisfied all components of the CASP [25].The Wenger’s Community of Practice Model was in-

formed by qualitative research methods using focus

groups that were thematically analysed. It scored 100%on the MMAT for the quality of the qualitative methodsand satisfied all components of the CASP [26].The SEER Framework was informed by literature syn-

thesis, item generation and refinement, consultationwith policy-makers, and testing of measurement prop-erties. It demonstrated good internal consistency andreliability but was not specific to allied health. The fourincluded scales may be used in policy settings to evalu-ate current capacity and identify areas that needcapacity-building. It scored 100% on the MMAT Ap-praisal Tool for quality of mixed methods [54].The Research Capacity and Culture tool was devel-

oped by a literature review and evidence synthesis.Psychometric testing in a Queensland primary health-care sample (n = 134) demonstrated excellent internalconsistency for organisation, team and individual do-mains, and strong test-retest reliability. The ResearchCapacity and Culture tool was not specifically de-signed for allied health alone and requires translationand effective testing. It scored 100% on the MMAT

Fig. 1 PRISMA-compliant flowchart for inclusion into the review

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 5 of 15

Table

1Includ

edpape

rs

Autho

r,Year

Title

Fram

ework

orMod

elStud

ylocatio

n/Health

care

domain

Participants

Fram

eworkde

velopm

ent

/Study

type

Bren

nan,

2017

[54]

Develop

men

tandvalidationof

SEER

(Seeking

,Eng

agingwith

andEvaluatin

gResearch):ameasure

ofpo

licym

akers’

capacity

toen

gage

with

anduseresearch

SEER

Fram

ework

Australia,H

ealth

policy-makers

Investigator

team

(researchers,po

licy-

makers)150/272respon

dents,57/105

respon

dents,9po

licyagen

cies

Item

gene

ratio

nand

refinem

ent,Literature

review

andexpe

rtconsen

sussurvey,Validity

andinternalconsistencysurvey,

Test-retestreliability

Coo

ke,2005

[26]

Aframew

orkto

evaluate

research

capacity

buildingin

health

care

Coo

keFram

ework

UnitedKing

dom,

Prim

arycare

Not

repo

rted

Literature

review

andexpe

rtop

inion

Farm

er,2002

[19]

Aconcep

tualmod

elforcapacity

building

inAustralianprim

aryhe

alth

care

research

‘Who

lesystem

’Fram

ework

Australia,G

eneral

practitione

rsNot

repo

rted

Expe

rtop

inion

Fleisher,

2007

[55]

TheNCI’s

CancerInform

ationService’s

Research

Con

tinuu

mFram

ework:

integratingresearch

into

cancer

education

practice

CISResearch

Con

tinuu

mFram

ework

UnitedStates,

NationalC

ancer

Inform

ationService

Not

repo

rted

Not

repo

rted

Golen

ko,

2012

[25]

Athem

aticanalysisof

theroleof

the

organisatio

nin

buildingalliedhe

alth

research

capacity:a

senior

managers’

perspe

ctive

Research

Capacity-

BuildingMod

elAustralia,A

llied

health

managers

Ninesemi-structuredinterviews

Qualitativestud

ywith

them

atic

analysis

Gullick,2016

[56]

Buildingresearch

capacity

and

prod

uctivity

amon

gadvanced

practicenu

rses:anevaluatio

nof

theCom

mun

ityof

Practicemod

el

Wen

ger’s

Com

mun

ityof

PracticeMod

elAustralia,N

ursing

Sixfocusgrou

ps(25participants:2

nurse

practitione

rs;23clinicalnu

rseconsultants)

Qualitativestud

ywith

them

atic

analysis

Holde

n,2012

[27]

Validationof

theresearch

capacity

and

cultu

re(RCC)

tool:m

easurin

gRC

Cat

individu

al,team

andorganisatio

nlevels

Research

Capacity

andCulture

Tool

Australia,Prim

ary

care

Allied

health

assistants=3;Dieticians

=1

0;Occup

ationalthe

rapists=24;Physiothe

rapists

=29;Spe

echpatholog

ists=10;Socialw

orkers=

20;Psycholog

ists=6;Doctors,nurses=14

Quantitativemetho

dswith

factor

analysis,test-retestreliability,

intra-classcorrelation

Hulcombe

,2014

[28]

Anapproach

tobu

ildingresearch

capacity

forhe

alth

practitione

rsin

apu

bliche

alth

environm

ent:an

organisatio

nalp

erspective

Research

Capacity

andCulture

Building

Fram

ework

Australia,A

llied

health

clinicians

Med

icallabo

ratory

assistants;N

utritionand

dietetics;Occup

ationalthe

rapy;O

ralh

ealth

therapists;Physiothe

rapy;Pod

iatry;Psycho

logy;

Publiche

alth

practitione

rs;Radiatio

ntherapy

Literature

review

,stakeho

lder

consultatio

ns,expertop

inion;

Develop

men

tof

health

practitione

rs(Queen

slandHealth

)certified

agreem

ent(No.2)

(HPEB2)–CA/2011/106

McCance,

2006

[57]

Develop

ingabe

stpracticeframew

orkto

benchm

arkresearch

andde

velopm

ent

activity

innu

rsingandmidwifery

Research

and

Develop

men

tBestPractice

Fram

ework

UnitedKing

dom,

Nursing

Not

repo

rted

Literature

review

that

includ

ed52

pape

rsandge

neratedsixbe

stpracticestatem

ents

Makkar,2016

[58]

Thede

velopm

entof

ORA

CLe:a

measure

ofan

organisatio

n’scapacity

toen

gage

ineviden

ce-in

form

edhe

alth

policy

ORA

CLe

Fram

ework

Australia,H

ealth

policy-makers

Ninesemi-structuredinterviews–item

conten

t;Sixsemi-structuredinterviews–item

wording

Literature

review

toge

nerate

items;Qualitativemetho

dswith

conten

tanalysisforkey

domains;Q

uantitativemetho

dsto

developascoringsystem

andpsycho

metric

testing(n

=24)

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 6 of 15

Table

1Includ

edpape

rs(Con

tinued)

Autho

r,Year

Title

Fram

ework

orMod

elStud

ylocatio

n/Health

care

domain

Participants

Fram

eworkde

velopm

ent

/Study

type

Makkar,2016

[59]

Thede

velopm

entof

SAGE:Atool

toevaluate

how

policym

akers’en

gage

with

anduseresearch

inhe

alth

policym

aking

SAGEFram

ework

Australia,H

ealth

policy-makers

65interviewswith

policy-makers

Literature

review

andexpe

rtconsultatio

nto

developitem

conten

tandwording

;Qualitative

metho

dsbu

tno

trepo

rted

;Quantitativemetho

dsto

developascoringsystem

andpsycho

metric

testing

Redm

an,

2015

[22]

TheSPIRITActionFram

ework:Astructured

approach

toselectingandtestingstrategies

toincrease

theuseof

research

inpo

licy

SPIRITActionFram

ework

Australia,H

ealth

policy-makers

Ninesemi-structuredinterviewswith

policy-makers–item

conten

tLiterature

review

includ

ing106

pape

rsfro

mwhich

itemswere

gene

rated;

Qualitativemetho

dswith

conten

tanalysisanda

review

offramew

orkdo

mains;

Expe

rtop

inion

Ried

,2006

[60]

Settingdirections

forcapacity

buildingin

prim

aryhe

alth

care:a

survey

ofaresearch

netw

ork

SARN

etFram

ework

Australia,Prim

ary

healthcare

Allied

health

=26Generalpractitione

rs=19Health

services

=11Nurses=

9Acade

mics=9H

ospitald

octors=7

Qualitativeandqu

antitative

metho

dswith

unrepo

rted

design

andmetho

ds

Whitw

orth,

2012

[30]

Enhancingresearch

capacity

across

healthcare

andhigh

ered

ucationsectors:de

velopm

ent

andevaluatio

nof

anintegrated

mod

el

Partne

rshipMod

elUnited

King

dom,Spe

ech

therapists

Speech

andlang

uage

therapists

Expe

rtop

inionfro

msenior

managers;

Research

ideasweresolicitedfro

mpractitione

rs;Q

ualitativemetho

dsto

exploreexpe

riences

ofthe

research

collabo

ratio

n

NSW

Health

,2001

[23]

AFram

eworkforBu

ildingCapacity

toIm

prove

Health

RCBFram

ework

Australia,Prim

ary

healthcare

Not

repo

rted

Expe

rtop

inion

Hotte,2015

[24]

BuildingResearch

Capacity

with

intheBritish

Colum

biaHealth

Autho

rities:he

alth

services

andpo

licyresearch

supp

ortne

twork

Health

Autho

rity

Capacity-Building

Prog

ram

Canada,Pu

blic

health

Not

repo

rted

Literature

review

andiden

tification

ofsixthem

es

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 7 of 15

Appraisal Tool for quality of descriptive quantitativemethods [27].The ORACLE Framework was derived by robust

mixed methods that included qualitative methods forface validity and quantitative methods for scoring amatrix. It was designed to score the capacity of anorganisation to use research in policy-making but isnot specific to allied health. It has yet to be validatedas a measure of organisational capacity and culture tosupport research use. It scored 100% on the MMATAppraisal Tool for quality of qualitative, descriptivequantitative and mixed methods [58].The SAGE Framework was derived by interviews

with policy-makers and document analysis but the ex-plicit qualitative methods were not described. It wasdesigned to measure the extent to which research wasengaged with and used in a discrete policy orprogramme document. It was not designed to identify

overarching organisational structures that may con-tribute to barriers to research use and psychometrictesting for validity and reliability is planned. It scored100% on the MMAT Appraisal Tool for quality of de-scriptive quantitative and mixed methods [59].

Content analysisA total of 260 items were extracted from the 16frameworks and 15 duplicate items were deleted.From the remaining framework items, and from ourdata analysis and interpretation of these data, weidentified the following three domains by consensus:(1) system or regulatory (44 items), (2) organisation(125 items) and (3) individual (76 items). Through aniterative review process and constant comparison, theitems with similar content and meaning were groupedusing the domain headings summarised in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Content analysis – item reduction of identified research capacity-building frameworks and models

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 8 of 15

Thematic analysisThe main over-arching theme identified in this reviewwas that provision of research-informed healthcarethat is consistent with best available evidence requiresover-arching high level policies to enable leadership,organisations and individuals to embed a researchculture into everyday allied health practice. Four keythemes were identified, as shown in Table 2.

Theme 1: Regulatory environment, governance andorganisational structuresAll of the included frameworks provided descriptionsof over-riding policies, governance frameworks andregulatory systems considered as essential for sustain-ing a culture of scientific enquiry and evidence-basedpractice [15, 18–24, 26, 50–56]. These were applicableacross the entire allied healthcare domain, as well asfor medicine and nursing. Sustainable change was ar-gued to require an environment that supports andvalues the development, and continuation, of researchand evaluation processes [19, 22, 25, 27, 57–59].Evidence-informed policy-making needs to be

understood and implemented, particularly the incen-tives for policy-makers to support the use of evidencein policy cycles [11, 28]. Strengthening the appreci-ation and capacity of individual policy-makers, andtheir organisations, to make greater use of evidencecan be a first step in generating better evidence-

informed policy. Policy-makers can be informedabout, and benefit from, evidence-informed policy andcan also be assisted by tools to help them to access,analyse and utilise evidence. They can be encouragedto engage more closely with researchers as policy ad-visors. Collaborations with, and skills acquisition by,policy-makers were reported as important factors thatinfluence the use of research results and evidence [19,22–27, 30, 54–60].

Theme 2: Leadership and management buy-inCommon to all frameworks were themes of researchas the ‘core business’ with strong leadership and in-vestment, by management, in evidence-informed pol-icy and the acquisition of research literacy [19, 22–27,30, 55–60]. There was also consensus that individualallied health clinicians could further benefit from ac-tive and deliberate support to enable them to pro-gress from being a non-participant in research tobecoming truly research active and evidence informed[23, 24, 30, 58–60]. Strong recommendations weremade to embed formal engagement and collaborationwith researchers and research institutions. Theprovision of well-resourced infrastructure and missionstatements promoting research-informed policy andpractice were advocated. Access to commissioned sys-tematic or rapid reviews would generate research andinform policy development [19, 22–27, 30, 55–60].External regulation included government research in-stitutes, health licensing boards and legislation, forexample, United Kingdom National Institute of Clin-ical Excellence [61] and the Australian Health Practi-tioner Regulatory Agency [62].

Theme 3: Systems, tools, resources and timeAll frameworks mentioned the importance of provid-ing infrastructure, systems and processes to promoteand support a culture of enquiry and evidence [19,22–27, 30, 55–60]. A key organisational resourcethat was perceived to be enabling was clear and welldocumented research-related policies and procedures,including research responsibilities being explicit inall allied health job descriptions [22, 25, 27, 58, 59].The guidelines for workforce recruitment and reten-tion could include documenting career pathwayswith research components and assigning dedicatedclinical research positions [12, 23, 24]. It also in-cluded allied health research being mapped in stra-tegic plans [19, 25, 27, 59] and annual reports [19,25, 27, 58, 59]. An in-house ethics committee oreasy access to a local research ethics committee wasalso facilitatory [23, 24, 58, 59].Human resources processes, such as mandatory

quality and research training, were considered to be

Table 2 Themes identified in the data analysis

Theme Title and summary

Overarchingtheme

The provision of research-informed healthcare that isconsistent with best available evidence requiresover-arching policies that enable the organisation andindividuals to be research active

Theme 1 Regulatory environment, governance and organisationalstructures• Sustainable change requires allied healthresearch policies, regulation, governance andorganisational structures that support and valueevidence-based practice

Theme 2 Leadership and management buy-in• Research capability,receptivity and literacy of healthcare leaders and managersare key to successful research implementation

Theme 3 Systems, tools, resources and time• The provision ofresearch infrastructure, research systems, tools, databases,resources, time allocation, dedicated research staffpositions, mentoring, professional education andmechanisms for recognition and reward are keyorganisational factors that enable research capacity-building• Partnerships between healthcare agenciesand universities with co-located research leadersoptimises research quality and productivity

Theme 4 Attributes of individual clinicians• Attributes andcapabilities of individual clinicians such as researchqualifications, skills, research literacy, communicationskills, partnerships, confidence and motivation helpstrengthen and develop research interactions andincrease research receptivity

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 9 of 15

of benefit [26–28, 30, 54, 58–60]. The documenta-tion of research outputs and research disseminationstrategies, such as communities of practice, researchcommittees, research seminars and research newslet-ters, were considered important [19, 23–27, 30, 54,58–60]. Infrastructure recommendations included theroutine provision of information technology servicesand equipment supporting research, such as 24 hintranet access, library access on line, laptops andtablets, and access to statistical and bibliographicsoftware [19, 23–28, 30, 54, 58–60]. Collaborationbetween the healthcare practice settings and an aca-demic institute was also considered highly beneficialto research capacity-building [19, 23–28, 30, 54, 58–60]. This could be formalised by joint research lead-ership appointments and industry research partner-ships [19, 23–28, 30, 54, 58–60].

Theme 4: Attributes of individual cliniciansThere are important attributes and capabilities of in-dividual clinicians that strengthen and develop re-search interactions and increase research receptivity.These include research skills and literacy, communi-cation skills, confidence and motivation [26]. To beable to build research capacity, it is essential for theallied health workforce to be able to access, under-stand and apply research evidence [19, 23–28, 30,54, 58–60].To build research capacity it is also necessary for

individual clinicians to strengthen and develop re-search partnerships, develop confidence and increaseresearch receptivity [19, 23–28, 30, 54, 58–60]. Indi-viduals need training to acquire research literacy [25,27, 28, 30, 54, 58–60]. They can also be enabled tobecome research active by having ready access tomentors, research champions and multidisciplinaryresearch collaboration networks. Practical assistancecan come in the form of training in scientific writ-ing, conference presentations, public speaking skills,journal clubs and applying for research funding [19,23–28, 30, 54, 58–60]. Individual recognition for re-search achievements through awards, incentives andpromotion can also assist the adoption of research-led practice [19, 23–28, 30, 55, 56].

DiscussionThis rapid review identified 16 research capacity-building frameworks that could inform the policies,principles and design of systems for the embeddingof a research culture into allied health clinical prac-tice (Table 1). The data have been synthesised toidentify essential elements for embedding a cultureof research within allied health clinical practice.There were two key allied health-specific models –

Golenko’s Thematic Model for Research CapacityBuilding [25] and Hulcombe’s Health PractitionerResearch Capacity and Culture Building Framework[28]. There was another that was specific to speechpathology [30] and two that were primary care andincluded allied health, medicine and nursing [56, 60].The frameworks highlighted the importance of high-level systems, organisational governance and regula-tions that support and value allied health research.They also noted the importance of hospital leaders,and allied health managers in particular, being re-search literate and advocates of allied health research[25, 29].Of value were explicit local systems and proce-

dures for research conduct and regulation, includingpolicies and procedures on research ethics, methods,consumer involvement, research documentation, datastorage, and the dissemination of research findingsto end users. Hulcombe et al. [29] stressed the im-portance of ensuring physical resources and time tosupport a research-informed workforce. The estab-lishment of allied health research networks and for-mal partnerships with tertiary institutions, researchinstitutes and industry partners also helped to embeda research culture within allied health [12, 20–22,54–60].Overall, the key systems factors found in this re-

view to support allied health research were the exist-ence of allied health research policies together withgovernment level advocacy, support and regulations[19, 22, 25, 28, 30, 31, 54, 56, 58, 63]. Strengtheningthe research capabilities of individual policy-makersand assisting them and their organisations to makegreater use of evidence was arguably a necessary firststep in generating better evidence-informed policy[25, 27, 54, 55, 57–59, 63].The key enabling organisational factors were leader-

ship within organisations (especially allied healthmanagers), collaboration, mentorship and resources.For allied health research capacity and culture to bedeveloped and sustained, a whole-of-organisation ap-proach was optimal [19, 25–28, 54, 56–60] and sup-port from senior management was essential [19, 23–28, 54, 56–60, 63]. Research can be incorporated intothe organisational structure, processes and core busi-ness such as strategic plans and mission statements[26–28, 54, 57–60]. Systems that establish careerpathways including research-active leadership posi-tions, research champions, conjoint university posi-tions and research literacy were viewed as helpful [12,19, 26–28, 30, 54–56, 58, 59, 63].At the organisational level, collaborations between

healthcare practice settings and academic institutessuch as universities were perceived to have major

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 10 of 15

impact [19, 26–28, 30, 54–56, 58, 59]. For change tobe sustained, it was recommended that institutionsprovide incentives for adoption of evidence-informedbehaviours [8, 39, 58, 59, 63]. An institutionalisedmethod was preferable [17, 22, 25–28, 35, 54] andcould be achieved through an external regulatorybody such as demonstrated by the United KingdomNational Institute of Clinical Excellence [61].Common to all included frameworks were the

themes of strong leadership and management invest-ment. Strengthening the capacity of individuals andorganisations is necessary but probably insufficientin isolation to ensure the sustainability of evidence-informed policy-making. Strengthening of institu-tional capacity and regulatory control arguably re-quires resources, legitimacy and regulatory supportfrom policy-makers [19, 22–28, 30, 54–60].

Practice implicationsTo support the development of research capacityand capability in allied health, policy-makers andhealthcare organisations can optimise capability-building frameworks, models and strategies. Theidentification of approaches suited to the local envir-onment, caseload mix and workforce profile facili-tates implementation. Regulation, strong leadershipand supportive management structures form essentialelements of a successful research culture within al-lied health [7, 8, 12, 19, 22–28, 30, 34, 54–60]. Thefuture lies in new policies informed by a robustlyderived framework.

LimitationsWe made every effort to source hard-to-reach publi-cations by using forward and backward citationtracking, government websites, hand-searching andexpert communication. Nevertheless, some policydocuments or publications not in Web of Science orSCOPUS may have been missed. Moreover, there aremore than 20 allied health professions and the litera-ture reviewed may not have addressed issues foreach. The literature reviewed predominantly focusedon physiotherapy, psychology, social work, podiatry,pharmacy, occupational therapy and dietetics.Some of the included frameworks did not demon-

strate robust development methods and some weregovernment reports. There was a paucity of evidenceto support the implementation of these particularcapability and capacity-building models in clinicalorganisations and any measures of their impact oreffectiveness. Despite the method quality limitationsthere was, however, a consensus across all frame-works on the fundamental domains and items. Theconceptual relationships between the themes are

beyond the scope of this rapid review and await fur-ther investigation.

ConclusionThis systematic review and critical evaluation of theliterature identified 16 theoretical frameworks thatcould inform the development of models to embed aculture of allied health research into public and pri-vate healthcare services. The framework elements in-form policy development, as well as the design ofsystems and linkages to support knowledge gener-ation, research implementation and knowledge trans-lation. The results will inform future allied healthresearch capacity-building frameworks at governmentand policy level to oversee investment, evidence up-take and research implementation. The challenges fa-cing policy-makers to support the use of evidence inpolicy cycles is considerable. Safer, more effectiveand efficient consumer-oriented care is the ultimategoal. Research-led and evidence-informed alliedhealth practice also facilitates workforce recruitment,retention and capability.

Appendix 1Example search strategy: Ovid MEDLINE (up until 15/10/2017)

1. Capacity Building/ or (“capacity building” or“research capacity” or (system* adj2 capacit*)or ((“research” or “allied health”) adj5 capacit*)or ((build* or increas* or develop* or enhanc*or strengthen* or *motiv*) adj5 (capacit* or skill*or abilit* or workforce)).ti,ab

2. Research/ or (culture or clin* research* or healthresearch*).ti,ab

3. Models, Organisational/ or Models, Theory/ orModels, Theoretical/ or Systems Theory/ or(theor* or framework* or construct? or model*or concept*).ti,kw,kf. or (theor* or framework*or construct? or model* or concept* or heuristic*or lens or paradigm* or principle? or pre-engagement or phase? or stage? or “innovationsupport”).ab

4. Health Planning/ or Health Systems / or HealthSystems Plans/ or Organisation/ or OrganisationalCulture/ or Organisational Innovation/ orOrganisational Objectives/ or Leadership/ orGovernance/ or (system or systems or systemic or“health care” or “health administration” or(translat* or implement*)) or organisation*).ti,ab

5. 1 and (2 or 3) and (3 or 4)

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 11 of 15

Appendix 2

Table 3 Excluded papers and reasons for exclusion

Author,Year Title Reason excluded

Borkowski, 2016 [17] Research culture in allied health: A systematicreview. Aust J Primary Health. 22(4):294–303.

Not a framework;enablers and barriers

Byrne, 2014 [39] Developing a national mentorship scheme toenhance the contribution of clinical academicsto health care. Nurs Res. 22(2): 23–28.

Not a framework;enablers and barriers

Cooke, 2008 [40] An evaluation of the ‘Designated ResearchTeam’ approach to building research capacityin primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 9: 37.

Evaluation of frameworkimplementation

Du Plessis, 2007 [64] Opinions on a strategy to promote nurses’health research contribution in South Africa.Health SA Gesondheid. 12(4):25–35.

Not a framework;Delphi study

Elphinstone, 2015 [65] Untapped potential: Psychologists leadingresearch in clinical practice. Aust Psych.50(2): 115–121.

Not a framework; researchcapacity measurement

Friesen, 2017 [66] Research culture and capacity in communityhealth services: Results of a structured surveyof staff. Aust J Prim Health. 23(2): 123–131.

Survey to inform enablersand barriers

Frontera, 2006 [67] Rehabilitation Medicine Summit: BuildingResearch Capacity: executive summary.Am J Occup Ther. 60(2):165–176.

Enablers and barriers

Gerrish, 2017 [33] Implementing clinical academic careers innursing: an exemplar of a large healthcareorganisation in the United Kingdom. J ResNurs. 22(3):214–225.

Framework for careerdevelopment and notresearch capacity

Grange, 2005 [37] Building research capacity. Nurs Manag(Harrow).12(7):32–37.

Not a framework;enablers and barriers

Holden, 2012 [27] Evaluating a team-based approach to researchcapacity building using a matched-pairs studydesign. BMC Fam Pract.13:16.

Not a framework; anintervention study

Janssen, 2013 [68] Building the research capacity of clinical physicaltherapists using a participatory action researchapproach. Phys Ther. 93(7): 923–34.

Not a framework;qualitative studyof Physical Therapists

Joss, 2005 [69] Workforce development to embed mental healthpromotion research and evaluation intoorganisational practice. Health Prom J Aust. 18(3):255–259.

Not a framework

Judd, 2013 [70] Building health promotion capacity in a primaryhealth care workforce in the Northern Territory:some lessons from practice. Health Prom J Aust.24(3):163–169.

Not a framework;practitioner survey

Misso, 2016 [20] Development, implementation and evaluation ofa clinical research engagement and leadershipcapacity building program in a large Australianhealth care service. BMC Med Educ. 16: 13.

Not a framework;Protocol for anintervention study

Moore, 2015 [71] Council for allied health professions research:Collaborative initiative to develop and promoteresearch capacity and influence. Physiother. 101,eS1027-eS1028.

Conference abstract;no data

Pickstone, 2008 [29] Building research capacity in the allied healthprofessions. Evidence Policy. 4(1): 53–68.

Not a framework

Probst, 2015 [36] Research from therapeutic radiographers: Anaudit of research capacity within the UK.Radiography. 21(2):112–118.

Not a framework; survey and audit

Segrott, 2006 [32] Challenges and strategies in developing nursingresearch capacity: a review of the literature. InternatJ Nurs Stud. 43(5): 637–651.

Not a framework;enablers and barriers

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 12 of 15

AbbreviationsCASP: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme; MMAT: Mixed Methods AppraisalTool; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

AcknowledgmentsNot applicable.

FundingSS and MM are supported by Healthscope and La Trobe University. KP issupported by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. Thefunders had no role in protocol development.

Availability of data and materialsAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in thispublished article or are available from the first author on request.

Authors’ contributionsThe research question resulted from discussions among all the authors. Thesearch strategies were developed with input from all authors. SS conductedthe database searches and initial screening by title. SS and MM assessed theliterature against the review criteria, and undertook data extraction, synthesisand analysis of the literature. All authors (SS, MM, KP) provided input intofindings and conclusions and edited drafts of the article. All authors (SS, MM,KP) read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participateNot applicable.

Consent for publicationNot applicable.

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

Author details1La Trobe Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine Research, School of AlliedHealth, College of Science, Health & Engineering, La Trobe University,Bundoora 3086, Australia. 2Department of Health and Human Services,Victoria State Government, 50 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia.3Healthscope, North Eastern Rehabilitation Centre, Ivanhoe, Australia.

Received: 13 November 2017 Accepted: 5 March 2018

References1. Nancarrow SA, Young G, O’Callaghan K, Jenkins M, Philip K, Barlow K. Shape

of allied health: an environmental scan of 27 allied health professions inVictoria. Aust Health Rev. 2017;41(3):327–35. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH16026

2. Nancarrow SA, Roots A, Grace S, Moran AM, Vanniekerk-Lyons K.Implementing large-scale workforce change: learning from 55 pilot sites ofallied health workforce redesign in Queensland, Australia. Human ResHealth. 2013;11:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-66.

3. The Australian Government Department of Health. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/work-review-australian-government-health-workforce-programs-toc~chapter-8-developing-dental-allied-health-workforce~chapter-8-allied-health-workforce. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

4. Perry A, Morris M, Unsworth C, Duckett S, Skeat J, Dodd K, Taylor N, Reilly K.Therapy outcome measures for allied health practitioners in Australia: theAusTOMs. Internat J Qual Health Care. 2004;16(4):285–91.

5. Nancarrow SA, Moran A, Sullivan R. Mechanisms for the effectiveimplementation of an allied health assistant trainee: A qualitative study of aspeech language pathology assistant. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(1):101–8.

6. Harding KE, Porter J, Horne-Thompson A, Donley E, Taylor NF. Not enoughtime or a low priority? Barriers to evidence-based practice for allied healthclinicians. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2014;34(4):224–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21255

7. Stephens D, Taylor NF, Leggat SG. Research experience and researchinterests of allied health professionals. J Allied Health. 2009;38(4):e107–11.

8. Harding KE, Stephens D, Taylor NF, Chu E, Wilby A. Development andevaluation of an allied health research training scheme. J Allied Health.2010;39(4):e143–8.

9. Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J. Taylor NF Organisational benefits of a strongresearch culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev.2017;41(1):45–53.

10. Haas R, Sarkies M, Bowles K-A, O'Brien L, Haines T. Early commencement ofphysical therapy in the acute phase following elective lower limbarthroplasty produces favourable outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis examining allied health service models. Osteoarthritis Cartil. 2016;24(10):1667–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.05.005

11. Philip K. Allied health: untapped potential in the Australian health system.Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(3):244–7.

12. Wenke R, Mickan S. The role and impact of research positions within healthcare settings in allied health: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res.2016;16:355. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1606-0

13. Sackett DL, Rosenberg W, McGray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–2. doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Table 3 Excluded papers and reasons for exclusion (Continued)

Author,Year Title Reason excluded

Skinner, 2015 [35] Embedding research culture and productivity inhospital physiotherapy departments: Challengesand opportunities. Aust Health Rev. 39(3):312–314.

Framework for translation;not research capacity-building

Varshney, 2016 [38] Understanding collaboration in a multi-nationalresearch capacity-building partnership: aqualitative study. Health Res Pol Syst.14: 1–10.

Qualitative study;enablers and barriers

Wenke, 2016 [12] The role and impact of research positions withinhealth care settings in allied health: a systematicreview. BMC Health Serv Res. 16: 355.

Not a framework

Wenke, 2017 [14] Allied health research positions: a qualitativeevaluation of their impact. Health Res PolSyst. 15(1):6.

Not a framework

Williams, 2015 [72] Research capacity and culture of the Victorianpublic health allied health workforce isinfluenced by key research support staff andlocation. Aust Health Rev. 39(3):303–311.

Not a framework;investigation ofenablers and barriers

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 13 of 15

14. Wenke RJ, Mickan S, Bisset L. A cross sectional observational study ofresearch activity of allied health teams: is there a link with self reportedsuccess, motivators and barriers to undertaking research? BMC Health ServRes. 2017;17:114.

15. Dizon JMR, Grimmer-Somers KA, Kumar S. Current evidence on evidence-based practice training in allied health: a systematic review of the literature.Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:347–60.

16. Stephens D, Taylor NF, Taylor N, et al. Research experience and researchinterests of allied health professionals. J Allied Health. 2009;38:e107–11.

17. Borkowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchett M, Williams C, Haines T. Research culturein allied health: A systematic review. Aust J Primary Health. 2016;22(4):294–3.https://doi.org/10.1071/PY15122.

18. Rastrick S. AHPs into Action: Using Allied Health Professionals to TransformHealth, Care and Wellbeing. 2017. https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/qual-clin-lead/ahp. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

19. Farmer E, Weston K. A conceptual model for capacity building in Australianprimary health care research. Aust Fam Phys. 2002;31(12):1139–42.

20. Misso ML, Ilic D, Haines TP, Hutchinson AM, East CE, Teede HJ.Development, implementation and evaluation of a clinical researchengagement and leadership capacity building program in a large Australianhealth care service. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0525-4

21. Dimond EP, Germain DS, Nacpil LM, Zaren HA, et al. Creating a “culture ofresearch” in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the NationalCancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program. Clin Trials. 2015;12(3):246–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515571141

22. Redman S, Turner T, Davies H, Williamson A, et al. The SPIRIT ActionFramework: a structured approach to selecting and testing strategies toincrease the use of research in policy. Soc Sci Med. 2015:147–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.05.009

23. NSW Health. A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health. BetterHealth Centre – Publications Warehouse. Locked Mail Bag 5003 Gladesville,NSW 2111. 2001. www.health.nsw.gov.au. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

24. Hotte N, Simmons L, Beaton K, the LDCP Workgroup. Scoping Review ofEvaluation Capacity Building Strategies. Cornwall; 2015. https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/eRepository/Scoping_Review_Evaluation_Capacity_LDCP_2015.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

25. Golenko X, Pager S, Holden L. A thematic analysis of the role of the organisationin building allied health research capacity: a senior managers' perspective. BMCHealth Serv Res. 2012;12:276. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-276

26. Cooke J. A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care.BMC Fam Pract. 2005;6:11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44

27. Holden L, Pager S, Golenko X, Ware RS. Validation of the research capacity andculture (RCC) tool: measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels.Aust J Primary Health. 2012;18(1):62–7. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY10081

28. Hulcombe J, Sturgess J, Souvlis T, Fitzgerald C. An approach to buildingresearch capacity for health practitioners in a public health environment: anorganisational perspective. Aust Health Rev. 2014;38(3):252–8. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH13066

29. Pickstone C, Nancarrow S, Cooke J, Vernon W, Mountain G, Boyce R,Campbell J. Building research capacity in the allied health professions. EvidPolicy. 2008;4(1):53–68. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426408783477864.

30. Whitworth A, Haining S, Stringer H. Enhancing research capacity acrosshealthcare and higher education sectors: development and evaluation of anintegrated model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:287. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-287

31. O’Byrne L, Smith S. Models to enhance research capacity and capabilities inclinical nurses: a narrative review. J Clin Nurs. 2011;20(9–10):1365–71.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03282.x

32. Segrott J, McIvor M, Green B. Challenges and strategies in developingnursing research capacity: a review of the literature. Intern J Nurs Stud.2006;43(5):637–51.

33. Gerrish K, Chapman H. Implementing clinical academic careers in nursing:an exemplar of a large healthcare organisation in the United Kingdom. JRes Nurs. 2017;22(3):214–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987116689133.

34. Wenke RJ, Ward EC, Hickman I, Hulcombe J, Phillips R, Mickan S. Alliedhealth research positions: a qualitative evaluation of their impact. Health ResPolicy Syst. 2017;15:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0166-4.

35. Skinner EH, Williams CM, Haines TP. Embedding research culture andproductivity in hospital physiotherapy departments: Challenges andopportunities. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(3):312–4.

36. Probst H, Harris R, McNair HA, Baker A, Miles EA, Beardmore C. Researchfrom therapeutic radiographers: An audit of research capacity within the UK.Radiography. 2015;21(2):112–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2014.10.009.

37. Grange A, Herne S, Casey A, Wordsworth L. Building research capacity. NursManag (Harrow). 2005;12(7):32–7.

38. Varshney D, Atkins S, Das A, Diwan V. Understanding collaboration in a multi-national research capacity-building partnership: a qualitative study. Health ResPolicy Syst. 2016;14:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0132-1.

39. Byrne G, Topping A, Kendall S, Golding B. Developing a national mentorshipscheme to enhance the contribution of clinical academics to health care.Nurs Res. 2014;22(2):23–8. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.2.23.e1288

40. Cooke J, Nancarrow S, Dyas J, Williams M. An evaluation of the 'DesignatedResearch Team' approach to building research capacity in primary care.BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-9-37.

41. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ofInterventions. Chichester: Wiley Online Library; 2011.

42. Feathersone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise JM, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA,Robinson KA, Umscheid CA, Hartling L. Advancing knowledge of rapidreviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations frompublished review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4.

43. Thomas J, Newman M, Oliver S. Rapid evidence assessments of research toinform social policy: taking stock and moving forward. Evid Policy. 2013;9:5–27. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662572.

44. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items forsystematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:332–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

45. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver SA, Craig J. Enhancing transparencyin reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med ResMethodol. 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181.

46. Oxford Dictionary. Theory. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theory. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

47. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks.Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

48. Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, Seller R.Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods AppraisalTool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Internat J Nurs Studies.2012;49(1):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002

49. CASP. Critical Skills Appraisal Programme: 10 Questions to Help you MakeSense of Qualitative Research. Milton Keynes: Milton Keynes Primary CareTrust; 2002.

50. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. http://www.nccmt.ca/. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

51. Miles M, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A MethodsSourcebook. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2014.

52. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics in Qualitative Research: Techniques andProcedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SagePublications; 1998.

53. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide ThroughQualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.; 2006.

54. Brennan SE, McKenzie JE, Turner T, Redman S, Makkar S, Williamson A,Haynes A, Green SA. Development and validation of SEER (Seeking,Engaging with and Evaluating Research): a measure of policymakers'capacity to engage with and use research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15:1.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0162-8

55. Fleisher L, Kornfeld J, Davis S, Morra ME, Squiers L. The NCI's CancerInformation Services Research Continuum Framework: integrating researchinto cancer education practice (1999-2004). J Cancer Educ. 2007;22:S41–8.

56. Gullick JG, West SH. Building research capacity and productivity amongadvanced practice nurses: an evaluation of the Community of Practicemodel. J Adv Nurs. 2016;72(3):605–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12850

57. McCance TV, Fitzsimons D, Armstrong NC. Developing a best practiceframework to benchmark research and development activity in nursing andmidwifery. J Res Nurs. 2006;11(2):160–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106062839

58. Makkar SR, Turner T, Williamson A, Louviere J, Redman S, Haynes A, Green S,Brennan S. The development of ORACLe: a measure of an organisation’scapacity to engage in evidence-informed health policy. Health Res PolicySyst. 2016;14:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-015-0069-9

59. Makkar SR, Brennan S, Turner T, Williamson A, Redman S, Green S. Thedevelopment of SAGE: A tool to evaluate how policymakers’ engage with

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 14 of 15

and use research in health policymaking. Res Eval. 2016;25(3):315–28.https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv044.

60. Ried K, Farmer EA, Weston KM. Setting directions for capacity building inprimary health care: a survey of a research network. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:8.https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-7-8.

61. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

62. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/. Accessed 15 Dec 2017.

63. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review ofbarriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMCHealth Serv Res. 2014;14:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2

64. Du Plessis D, Human SP. Opinions on a strategy to promote nurses’ healthresearch contribution in South Africa. Health SA Gesondheid. 2007;12(4):25–35.

65. Elphinstone RA, Pager S. Untapped potential: Psychologists leading researchin clinical practice. Aust Psych. 2015;50(2):115–21.

66. Friesen EL, Comino EJ. Research culture and capacity in community healthservices: Results of a structured survey of staff. Aust J Prim Health. 2017;23(2):123–131.

67. Frontera WR, Fuhrer MJ, Jette AM, Chan L, Cooper RA, Duncan PW, et al.Rehabilitation Medicine Summit: Building Research Capacity: executivesummary. Am J Occup Ther. 2006;60(2):165–76.

68. Janssen J, Hale L, Mirfin-Veitch B, Harland T. Building the research capacityof clinical physical therapists using a participatory action research approach.Phys Ther. 2013;93(7):923–34.

69. Joss N, Keleher H. Workforce development to embed mental healthpromotion research and evaluation into organisational practice. HealthProm J Aust. 2005;18(3):255–9.

70. Judd J, Keleher H. Building health promotion capacity in a primary healthcare workforce in the Northern Territory: some lessons from practice. HealthProm J Aust. 2013;24(3):163–9.

71. Moore A, Gosling S, Fitch F. Council for allied health professions research:Collaborative initiative to develop and promote research capacity andinfluence. Physiother. 2015;101:eS1027–eS1028.

72. Williams C, Miyazaki K, Borowski D, McKinstry C, Cotchet M, Haines T.Research capacity and culture of the Victorian public health allied healthworkforce is influenced by key research support staff and location. AustHealth Rev. 2015;39(3):303–11.

• We accept pre-submission inquiries

• Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal

• We provide round the clock customer support

• Convenient online submission

• Thorough peer review

• Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services

• Maximum visibility for your research

Submit your manuscript atwww.biomedcentral.com/submit

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central and we will help you at every step:

Slade et al. Health Research Policy and Systems (2018) 16:29 Page 15 of 15